THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY

tune out, unplug & spin the barrel, googol-ditz!

anyway, people seem to always forget, that
the particle & wave evocations are duals;
you cannot use the math of both at the same time. or,
if you are going to do that, then
you have to make some kind of accounting for that
(Shcroedinger's and/or Pauli's e.g.).

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/l...a_victory.html

in deed, one ought to write the book,
A Brief History of Schroedinger's Putty-tat!

the particle & wave evocations are duals;
(Shcroedinger's and/or Pauli's e.g.).

thus:
so, if the 1st conj. is (or leads to) the twin primes one, then
what is the 2nd conjecture of Littlewood and Hardy?... and,
why would one not believe, there is no end to twin primes?

I too have noted that the Harris approach is very similar to the first
H-L conjecture and I would add Merten's Third Theorem. His approach is
not better as he leaves out an important constant but it can still be
used to do useful work with twin primes.

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/
100303kesha_victory.html

On Mar 3, 6:03 pm, spudnik wrote:
that is the idea; teh scalar is "zero-dee & time-like,"
as in Lanczos use of it for SR; every thing else
abouit polysings is rather "cryptical," but
Pentcho is not going to reply to a God-am word,
in any case; probably just a scheme
for making free money on the net.

Polysign are vector spaces, but they also have an arithmetic product.
Making sense of the product is counterintuitive. I have yet to develop
a clean physics from polysign. It is very promising though.
Electromagnetics is a feature of spacetime itself. Structured
spacetime is the next great paradigm. Here we can land back in the
context of the quaternion, or lend support to the brane theories
through polysigns dimensional progression. I would like to take
physics into polysign, where spacetime is emergent.

thus:
are you imaginng the "pulses of light" to be photons?

I am open to a clean resolution of particle/wave duality. If we go
down the path of relativity theory then the photon (in its own
reference frame) is instantaneous in its transition from an emission
to reception. This is simply applying the logic of the time dilation
at the speed of light, as if a photon travels from an emitter A to a
receiver B.
The photon may as well have travelled the entire universe before
settling on B, since it makes little difference on instantaneous
transactions.

No, I do not accept relativity theory, yet somehow the results have
proven consistent, if we accept modern knowledge. To me there must be
another mapping to get to reality without all of the logical
conflicts. A new logic may be required, and so relativity perhaps
should be taken as transitional, which is pretty much how all of
physics should be taken.

Suppose that some little crumb of fundamental mathematics has not been
uncovered by humans yet. If that crumb is down in the fundamentals
then there is reason to believe that it might remedy the puzzles that
modern physics has built.

I have such instances on my website
http://bandtechnology.com
as the inverse cone and the polysign numbers. Take this as loose proof
that there are more of these discoveries to be made. Then the claim
that modern physics is not playing with a full deck becomes a
realistic statement. We do see creative mathematics applied in physics
so there is little point in denying the paradigm. But the more of
these constructions that get glued together then the more we should
seek a collapse into a more self evident form.

I guess the reality is that we all spend some of our time thinking
like this, even the experimental physicists, and any lay person on the
planet who ponders existence. But because it is too overwhelming we
settle on a subset. I have found that working in the fundamentals room
can be found. Modern physics is falsifiable.

If I ask you: What is heat?
You will likely say: Vibrating atoms.
If I ask you: What is sound?
You will likely say: Vibrating atoms.
I ask about the discrepancy between the propagation of heat and sound
in solid matter, which is a fairly obvious problem within the accepted
interpretations. I see no content, not even in modern thermodynamic
texts. They happily split the two and never look back. If the
conflict will not become recognized, then neither will the resolution.
It is points like this where new theories should remedy the puzzle,
particularly string/brane theory.

I have few answers and instead just continue to see more problems. I
should retire the expedition and settle back into a small sector of
the problem, where the overwhelming nature can be minimized.

- Tim


thus:
yeah, like the UNIPCC *says* that it includes a fudge-factor
to account for "urban heat islands," but it never seems
to appear to be used in any actual study (in general). also,
this is belied by what happenned to a mere dataset,
the US Reference Climate Network (28 continental stations
that were still rural since their creation, circa '80s .-)

That at least helps, but to avoid one common objection, he should also
avoid stations in areas that have become more urbanized during the
period in question.

thus:
that was a nice essay on bears!... of course,
there are more polar bears, now, then in the past 40 years
-- I think, I read, some recent time -- perhaps because
there are more "eskimos" (Inuit, BP employees etc.) and more gahbage;
do bears really like gahbage?

as for AGW, or just GW, or let me put it as,
as for "global" warming, that is primarily one of three things,
based mainly upon a)
computerized simulacra and b)
very selective reporting. (the three things are a)
misnomer, b)
nonsequiter, c)
oxymoron, although there does appear
to be actual data to support equitorial warming,
possibly even anthropogenic equitorial warming.)

what I prefer is a new nomenclature;
not only do we live in the Holocene interglacial
of the Quaternary period, but
we also live in the Anthropocene.

I'm not actually a fan of most of the positions taken by the Sierra
Club, but AGW happens to be the mainstream consensus of the scientific
community. You know, like relativity or evolution.

thus:
isn't the platypus a nonplacental mammal, as in,
What does her milk taste like?... please, don't bother
with the pro-hominemania of your supposed status
as a practicing and/or trained physicist, or netdoggy!

proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon, in assinging
all
of the energy of the wave-front as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say)
of a particle, whence the wave-energy was somehow collected
by the photoeletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.

so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound, and
like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency?

with 'Heat is radiated by photons'. What is physically occurring in
nature to cause 'heat' to exist and to be radiated? None of that is
answered with meaningless statements like 'Absorbed photon'. What does

--Light: A History!http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/l...a_victory.html

there is no need of a resolution between wave & particle;
they are just formal duals -- don't try to us both,
at the same time!

heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong
with saying that light "goes from A to B instantaneuosly
in its own frame of reference," except that
it doesn't have one, nor is aether necessitated as such.
(there is no vacuum; it's just a verb.)

* *http://bandtechnology.com
If I ask you: What is sound?
You will likely say: Vibrating atoms.

thus:
I don't care what breed of netdoggy you are,
mister I Am The Greatest Boxer of All Spacetime;
I did not ask for references on the measurement (as opposed
to the mathematical derivations) of permitivity and
permeability, just an evocation of the instruments, since
you have supposedly worked in this field, and I have not!

thus quoth:
“Its [corpuscular theory] place is taken by the undulatory theory,
first suggested by Huygens in 1690, reconciled to some extent with the
discoveries of Newton by Euler, advocated by Hartley, and finally
established by a study of the phenomenon of interference by Thomas
Young and by Fresnel. This theory gives a complete explanation of all
phenomena of light. According to this view, light, objectively
considered, is simply a mode of motion of a substance called the
luminiferous ether which pervades not only what is commonly regarded
as space, but also all translucent substances. By the molecular
movements of luminous bodies, this ether is set vibrating in a series
of waves.”

thus:
are you horning-in on the Wolframites --
did your daddy uncover an element of the periodical table,
NoMendeleyeev?

my New Science, and the present post. — NoEinstein —

thus:
ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell,
New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
trying to supress laughter (in a library).

thus quoth:
When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.

read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?

thus:
wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!

thus:
didn't finish, but it began rather nicely.
also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule"
as http://21stcenturysciencetech.com -- or knot.
http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm

thus:
the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
(tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
the speed of sound depends upon the density
of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
at sea-level!

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:
there is no need of a resolution between wave & particle;
they are just formal duals -- don't try to us both,
at the same time!

heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light, yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow; orders of
magnitude lower than the speed of sound, and now you are claiming that
it is many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of sound.

with saying that light "goes from A to B instantaneuosly
in its own frame of reference," except that
it doesn't have one, nor is aether necessitated as such.
(there is no vacuum; it's just a verb.)

http://bandtechnology.com
If I ask you: What is sound?
You will likely say: Vibrating atoms.

thus:
I don't care what breed of netdoggy you are,
mister I Am The Greatest Boxer of All Spacetime;
I did not ask for references on the measurement (as opposed
to the mathematical derivations) of permitivity and
permeability, just an evocation of the instruments, since
you have supposedly worked in this field, and I have not!

thus quoth:
“Its [corpuscular theory] place is taken by the undulatory theory,
first suggested by Huygens in 1690, reconciled to some extent with the
discoveries of Newton by Euler, advocated by Hartley, and finally
established by a study of the phenomenon of interference by Thomas
Young and by Fresnel. This theory gives a complete explanation of all
phenomena of light. According to this view, light, objectively
considered, is simply a mode of motion of a substance called the
luminiferous ether which pervades not only what is commonly regarded
as space, but also all translucent substances. By the molecular
movements of luminous bodies, this ether is set vibrating in a series
of waves.”

thus:
are you horning-in on the Wolframites --
did your daddy uncover an element of the periodical table,
NoMendeleyeev?

my New Science, and the present post. — NoEinstein —
I didn't write this.

thus:
ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell,
New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor,
trying to supress laughter (in a library).

thus quoth:
When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed,
you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether
flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be
walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room.

read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.

How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
I didn't write this.

thus:
wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!

thus:
didn't finish, but it began rather nicely.
also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule"
ashttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com-- or knot.

http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm

thus:
the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium,
viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone
(tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz,
the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus.
the speed of sound depends upon the density
of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level;
clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind
at sea-level!

--Light: A History!http://wlym.com

In article , "Tim Golden BandTech.com" writes:
On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:

heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,

There are three modes of heat transfer:
1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection

The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
does propagate at the speed of light.

yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;

Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
so they're irrelevant.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
In article , "Tim Golden BandTech.com" writes:

On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:
heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,

There are three modes of heat transfer:
1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection

The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
does propagate at the speed of light.

yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;

Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
so they're irrelevant.

No Michael.

His argument is in response to my presentation.
I am discussing heat conduction.

Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
Physics.

Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
sound?

Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.

The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.

- Tim


--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

On Mar 27, 6:30*am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, (Michael Stemper)
wrote:





In article , "Tim Golden BandTech.com" writes:

On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:
heat is infrared lightwaves. *there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,

There are three modes of heat transfer:
1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection

The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
does propagate at the speed of light.

* * * * * * * * *yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;

Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
so they're irrelevant.

No Michael.

His argument is in response to my presentation.
I am discussing heat conduction.

Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
Physics.

Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
sound?

Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.

The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.

Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.

waht he said. ultimately, it is all mediated
by radiation, but "stuff gets in the way of it."

there is another mode of heat transfer, perhaps
also less analyzable a la Fourier,
"trasporative heat flow," when water flows
over a warm object e.g.

Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
sound?

The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.

Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.

--Light: A history!
http://wlym.com

John Jones wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Theoretically, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can
be obtained by assuming that:

(A) The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c
+v); the principle of relativity is correct; there are no miracles
(length contraction, time dilation).

(B) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is correct; the principle
of relativity is correct; there are miracles (length contraction, time
dilation).

There is no reasonable third alternative. That is, Newton's emission
theory of light with its constitutive equation c'=c+v is the ONLY
alternative to special relativity. Moreover, the emission theory is
TRUE and special relativity FALSE unless one finds natural that a
long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can
be trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and
alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev